Cited by 41Primate Behavior and EcologyPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies

Tactful animals: How the study of touch can inform the animal morality debate

Open access
Monsó, Susana, Wrage, Birte·2021·Philosophical Psychology

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that scientists working on the animal morality debate have been operating with a narrow view of morality that prematurely limits the variety of moral practices that animals may be capable of. We show how this bias can be partially corrected by paying more attention to the touch behaviors of animals. We argue that a careful examination of the ways in which animals engage in and navigate touch interactions can shed new light on current debates on animal morality, like the study of consolation behavior, while also revealing further forms that animal morality may take that have been neglected so far, like capacities of tolerance or trust. This defense is structured as an analysis of the three main functions of touch: the discriminative function, the affiliative function, and the vigilance function.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09515089.2020.1859100

Cites

115 of 117 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Social touch has been identified as a significant moral interest for all animals.

    “Social touch has been identified as a significant moral interest for all animals [66].”

    From The social origins of consciousness (2025) · cites this paper as [66]

    The Introduction (p. 2) and Conclusion (p. 19) argue that social touch may reveal animals’ moral capacities and practices. The paper does not identify social touch as a moral interest for all animals; its discussion of touch’s developmental significance is limited to mammals (section 4, p. 12). (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Andrews, K. (2013). Ape Autonomy? Social Norms and Moral Agency in Other Species. In PetrusK. & WildM. (Eds.), Animal Minds & Animal Ethics: Connecting Two Separate Fields (pp. 173-197). Transcript
  2. Burkett, J., Andari, E., Johnson, Z., Curry, D., de Waal, F., & Young, L. (2016). Oxytocindependent consolation behavior in rodents. Science , 351 (6271), 375-378.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Monsó, S., & Wrage, B.
Affiliations
University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
Monsó, Susana
Venue
Philosophical Psychology
Published
2020-12-16
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
1-27
ISSN
  • 0951-5089 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-394X
OpenAlex
W3112889783
Cited by
41
References
115
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 2
FWCI
7.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UNED repository (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Austrian Science Fund (M2518-G32, P31466-G32)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Keywords
animal morality, touch, tolerance, trust

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review